The Violence Policy Center (VPC) recently issued a press release titled “States with Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death.” This included a list of 10 states highlighting a purported link between “weak” gun control laws and the total “gun death rate,” implying that states with “weak” laws have more “gun death.” VPC also included a reference to the “household gun ownership” levels in each state, underlining VPC’s belief that “strong” gun laws (i.e. more gun control) correlate with drastically reduced gun ownership rates. Therefore, VPC’s criteria is that guns are a vital causative factor in creating death. Their press release confirms this conclusion:

For their gun ownership data, VPC cited the 2002 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey from an article originally published in 2005 in the journal Pediatrics. The BRFSS is “operated by state health departments in collaboration with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” a department in the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

Calling this “the most up-to-date, comprehensive source for state gun ownership rates,” VPC attempted to match this 2002 survey data with 2007 firearms mortality data from the CDC, which immediately invalidates their dataset.

When asked to define this “apples and oranges” comparison of two unrelated datasets, Carl Moody, economics professor at William and Mary, called it a “screw-up.”

To give VPC a fair opportunity to make their point with properly-collated data, this report cites 2002 CDC mortality and FBI violent crime data. But first, VPC committed another sophomoric error which must be addressed.

The American Association for Public Opinion Research defines the “margin of sampling error” (MOSE) as:

Basically, the margin of sampling error is the price you pay for not talking to everyone in your population group. The MOSE describes the range that the answer likely falls between if we had talked to everyone instead of just a sample.

In other words, deleting most of a dataset in their press release enabled VPC to “cherry-pick” data that “proved” their predetermined conclusion that firearms represent a negative value to society.

By using less than 20% of the entire dataset, shown in Table 1, VPC makes its point that “weak” gun laws (less gun control) correlate with higher rates of total firearms death — more than four times as much — and higher rates of homicides using firearms (more than triple). Also, “weak” gun law states have over 4.5 times higher firearms suicide rates. Violent crime rates support VPC’s allegation: “weak” gun laws lead to more crime. (All rates are defined as incidents per 100,000 population.)

Table 1: CDC Firearms and Non-Firearms Death Rates (2002), VPC States

Total

Homicide

Suicide

FBI

Gun

Non-gun

Gun

Non-gun

Gun

Non-gun

Violent

Crime

Hom.

VPC “Strong” states

4.14

39.42

1.91

1.63

2.13

5.58

368.5

3.1

VPC “Weak” states

17.98

58.39

6.72

2.86

10.17

4.78

531.4

8.5

Percent Difference

334.0

48.1

251.6

75.6

376.5

-14.3

44.2

173.7

(Note: CDC and FBI homicide rates are different because each agency gathers data from different sources. The CDC collects information from death certificates, usually prepared by “attending physicians, medical examiners, and coroners.” The FBI gets their information from law enforcement agencies.)

61 Comments, 29 Threads

1.
robotech master

Lies all lies you know what you are mr Howard Nemerov. Its a well known fact that less guns means less crime… you sir are a denier… I bet you don’t believe in global warming or that obama is Constitutionally allowed to be president…

You know, robo, when you lash out reflexively with anger, without first studying the data to check it’s veracity, that makes you look like a narrow-minded, ignorant, intolerant red-neck. But you know what you are, so why did I even have to write it? Stop being in denial, it’s making you sick.

If you’re correct in that conclusion, I retract my comment. However, everybody please remember that the written word communicates perhaps 10% as well as a face-to-face conversation. Perhaps the use of [/sarcasm] would be useful to avoid such misunderstandings in the future? I cannot see the person’s body language, facial expression, nor hear their vocal intonation or see other cues on a writing-only, internet posting.

Easy there, Robo. . . .quit drinking the lib kool-aid, get back on your meds, and be willing to admit the truth: more guns=less crime, global warming ( man made) is bs, and the “o” is a POS interloper.

True Sharp, but explain to Howard that use of the term “Red Neck” without any explanatory body language may well place him on the wrong side of a line drawn in the dust where universal body language is of a horizontal dialect. Any data from a federal (CDC), world (WHO) or any other filtered source should only be used to expose it as political fodder for mass media use
He can take note from Ret. Marine below. When a conversation gets serious, sarcasm may become detrimental to ones future. Blogs could possibly encourage a waste of effort intended for headliners. This ain’t hopscotch Tater but watch out for the lines.

I think a key error in this data set is the failure to distinguish between homicide types. For instance, when a police officer shoots a person during the commission of a crime or in self-defense, it’s called a homicide. If a thief shoots a person, or a person commits murder for any reason, that is a homicide. If a person defends themselves and family from threat of death, that too is a homicide. If a person accidentally is killed by a firearm, that to is homicide. Fortunately, this study broke out suicide deaths. You should even add stats that show the number of deaths caused by those with concealed carry permits vs total permit holders in a state.

I have yet to see a study which makes a distinction between these very different forms of gun related death. When done, a much more accurate assessment can be made regarding issues such as right to carry, concealed carry or gun ownership.

Nice try, kimo. Had you gone to the CDC website and examined the data first, you would have found that justifiable homicides are a unique category. I separated out criminal homicides in this study, whereas VPC counted self-defense, accidents, and suicides-all with unique dynamics-in order to produce a scarier number.

If you haven’t “seen” a study that counts only criminal homicide, you must be willfully ignoring a huge body of work. You comment proves your self-induced blindness, for the numbers are right here.

Howard, I didn’t follow that link. I’m glad you did separate out the data. I am not pro gun control, I’m the exact opposite. What I poorly pointed out was that most studies do lump all data together in order to make a scary scenario.

No; your dictionary is defective: homicide is the killing of a person, and the term is value-neutral. An unlawful homicide is murder, but sometimes a homicide can be lawful, such as the killing of an enemy in war-time combat, an execution of a criminal by the state, or killing an attacker in justifiable self-defence. Sometimes a homicide can be unlawful, but accidental and not malicious, and classed as manslaughter. Sometimes, as in the case of unborn infants, circumstances and politics determine whether the intentional killing be classed as legal infanticide (as in late-term abortions) or murder (when, for example, pregnant women are victims of deadly assaults).

Every good deed deserves it days. While the “left” thinking process is not critical in it’s depts, it is not even close to resembleing the “truth”. I’ll take my 300winchester over the lies any day. If the so-called truth tellers have to use fraud to make a point, maybe they should consider the old saying, the bullet will always speak to the truth. Get ahold of yourselves gentlemen, do you not understand telling a lie will still get you a free pass to hell.

I believe that people miss (sometimes intentionally) the real relationship between 2nd amendment rights and crime. It has nothing at all with Wild West gun battles in the streets.

In D.C., for example – the high violent crime rate is not directly caused by the low level of private gun ownership. It is caused by the fact that the bad guys KNOW that no one is armed. If you break into a private home in D.C. armed with a firearm you have the power of God in your hands. You have the unchallenged power of life and death over all in the house. Not only is this true – but DC’s restrictive gun control laws publicly announces that private homes are likely undefended. Thugs can hunt the streets with impunity. They know this.

Now, if you are considering breaking into a house in rural Texas armed with a fire arm – you are likely going to face superior firepower. You will probably not survive the encounter. Bad guys know this too. Now here is the key… it doesn’t matter whether or not this is actually true. It doesn’t matter whether or not the Texas home owner is actually armed. Unlike the DC home – the Texas home is protected by the fact that the homeowner MIGHT be armed. Because armed home invasion is quite likely suicide in rural Texas – even the people who choose not to own a firearm are protected by their RIGHT to own one.
And – even if our DC home owner decides to violate the law and have a gun in the house – he is much more likely to have to actually use it because the bad guys have no reason to believe the home owner is armed. In practice – the right to be armed is much more of a deterrent than the actual use of weapons.

An armed society is a polite society.

This was the strategy the US used to use (up until last month) by keeping our nuclear deterrent Top Secret. We asserted our right to do what we wanted, kept quiet about the specifics and allowed the bad guys to assume the worst (from their own perspective). Everybody played nice and we didn’t have to nuke anyone. The assumption that the US had overwhelming Nuclear power prevented us from having to use nuclear power. As we seem to be weaker to the world and as we place all our cards on the table – we become more like the rare DC home owner who decided to keep a gun under the pillow anyway. Bad guys start to think they can take us and we become much more likely to actually have to shoot.

Good Post. I was in San Antonio for an interview a few years ago (I WILL get there sooner of later). I remember thinking exactly the same thing as I drove through the suburbs and rural areas north of the city. What kind of a nut would break into one of these houses?

The day I was there, the local news had a story about a man whose house had been robbed while he was hunting in the hill country. Apparently the crooks returned for more stuff not realizing the owner had returned (with his 12-gauge) – one crook dead, one fled wounded. Police congratulated the owner.

This is a very important point. If you read the NRA’s Armed Citizen column, which appears monthly in American Rifleman magazine and details actual uses of personal firearms in self defense:Studies indicate that firearms are used over 2 million times a year for personal protection, and that the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances. (emphasis mine)

That, Sir, is the most important point made to date on studies on the relationship between gun ownership and death. Studies like this assert (by inference) that a successful home invasion robbery or a successful rape or kidnapping is “better” than a dead purp on the floor. I obviously disagree. “Crime stopped in progress – justified shoot – bad guy dead – homeowner uninjured” needs to be a separate category and needs to be on the “plus” side.

Lets see – I will post a sign outside your house “No Guns Inside”. I wonder who who will be the target for criminal activity ? My house will be more secure as there is uncertainty in the mind of the criminal. In fact lets have all anti second amendment advcocates post the “No Guns” sign. They can rely on the police eventually arriving after the fact and can explain ther “superior” ethics in not protecting self and family.

Note the word ‘violence’. These people have no intention
of stopping with firearms, nonlethal weapons like tasers
and stun guns, or even (barely) hypothetical paralysis
pistols; They are working toward the same goal already
reached in Britain: Making it illegal to defend oneself,
advising people who see a violent crime in progress to
simply turn and walk away, regressing adults to children,
because they are more easily controlled, and less likely
to resist oppression…violently.

I propose that we begin to differentiate between violence (unwarranted attacks on people minding their own business) and self-defense. I no longer consider self-defense violence. If you build a house using a hammer, its energy drives nails into wood. If you use a hammer to murder, the same energy drives in the skull. Both actions are physically equal, but we don’t call carpentry violence. It’s all about intent. Self-defense is merely the victim expressing their God-given right to live peaceably.

Recent data from the UK indicates that Britain has a much higher incident of burglary and aggravated burglary (assaulting the resident)than the US. What’s more interesting is that the majority of burglaries occur within relatively fewer states (that ban or highly restrict ownership and use of force.

It would not be surprising at all to find the a few cities in the US have rates as high as the UK, and many similar cities have extremely few.

In the case of home invasion or burglary, the homeowner has the advantage of defending on familiar terrain. On the street, encounters generally favor the criminal because they can pick the location and have the initiative. However, in RTC concealed states, the street criminal cannot be sure that a bystander won’t be armed and inclined to intervene to prevent a crime. Thus logic would suggest that street crime is also deterred in RTC states. Anecdotal evidence of this comes from Florida, where street criminals were mugging tourists who had identifiable rental cars. Do the above statistics capture these distinctions?

In addition to other distortions, it sounds like the VPC is attempting to correlate state gun laws and legal gun ownership with prevalence of gun crime without considering other obvious factors. Like the prevalence of gun crimes committed with illegal weapons.

That would be par for the course for them.

I never thought about buying a gun until the home invasion rate shot up in my old neighborhood. Likewise, in Chicago, public opinion seems to be changing very quickly on gun ownership after several really tragic incidents — pro-ownership, not con. Cooked studies by activist groups like this one aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. Unfortunately, this study is already being touted in the media as the latest “news.” Lazy reporters just reprint it as fact, something they wouldn’t do with the latest NRA press release.

“The American Association for Public Opinion Research defines the “margin of sampling error” (MOSE) as:

Basically, the margin of sampling error is the price you pay for not talking to everyone in your population group. The MOSE describes the range that the answer likely falls between if we had talked to everyone instead of just a sample.

In other words, deleting most of a dataset in their press release enabled VPC to “cherry-pick” data that “proved” their predetermined conclusion that firearms represent a negative value to society.”

I’m not arguing that these “researchers” didn’t delete most of the dataset in their press release, but it appears that the above quoted statement is a non-sequitar. Having a MOSE does not mean thtat they’ve deleted any part of their dataset. I may be missing something, but I’ve re-read this a couple of times and can’t figure out where the support for your assertion that they did delete part of the dataset. The MOSE is just a statistical tool to show that there is a certain chance that the results if you tested the entire population would differ from the results from a testing sample at a certain confidence level (usually 95%). The MOSE usually drops as the the sample size increases assuming that the sample is chosen completely at random. I assume you know all of this, though. Can you explain how you came to the conclusion that they deleted part of their sample? Forgive me if you did and I missed it.

Good question. It is important for statistical researchers to understand the dynamics of sampling error, in order to hopefully construct datasets that minimize it. In this case, VPC constructed a skewed dataset in order to “prove” their point. They conveniently ignored Washington DC, because its extremely high murder rate would damage their 10-state sampling averages shown in Table 1. The DC murder rate puts it at the very top, while its gun ownership rate places it at the very bottom. So perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that VPC purposely used MOSE to benefit themselves.

Not only that, but their sampling has such different values than the entire dataset, that MOSE obviously came into play.

Their entire report is nonsense, but I have to work with what they gave me. If you still feel it is a “non-sequitar,” please ask VPC to explain why they did what they did. Perhaps you will be more successful, but I found that numerous inquiries resulted in zero response. They only talk to journalists whom they know will be friendly parrots.

I presume that the assumed intention of the “research” was to present a picture supporting the protagonists’ case for greater gun control. However, when faux-researchers begin parsing the data as Al Gore’s Magical Marketing Show did, I think we can justifiably begin questioning or even dismiss the idea that the faux research was approached independently.

Gore has poisoned the world against science by teaching everyone that research is about approaching an objective from the point of the data being forced to justify the previously determined conclusions. I thought the Renaissance and Enlightenment did away with those remnants of the Holy Roman Empire, but just like not killing all the Amaleks, you eventually are paid back for not eliminating all the enemies of reason.

Further, it brings to mind the question as to whether the Al Gore Magical Marketing show was merely a trial balloon for the later Presidency of the US Magical Marketing show, as in: if they’re dumb enough to buy this, they’re probably dumb enough to buy “hope and change”, too.

It can be amazing what bill of goods is sold to you if you aren’t really paying attention.

GDT – Excellent point! If the criminal element KNOWS that law abiding citizens are unarmed, they have a greater confidence in victimizing society successfully.

If I choose to enter unlawfully a residence to remove property, my attempt might be thwarted simply by the FACT that the owner retains the right and possible ability to inflict serious bodily injury and/or death as a result of my entry.

If I know the law prohibits this homeowner from owning a firearm and other evidence supports this probability (such as an “O” decal on the car), I can enter and do as I please with a weapon (what ever I choose) without fear of injury or detainment.

I wonder about the suicide rates. Someone committing suicide with a hand gun is usually an obvious suicide. Some other methods of suicide can easily be confused with accidents or carelessness. Would there be an increase in “accidental” deaths in the strong gun control states?

I said I would retract my original comment, and it appears from later comments that’s the case. Sorry I didn’t know the author was being sarcastic. But as Sharpshooter notes, such comments are often dead serious. Having lived in California where being a pro-2AM supporter engenders hatred, I can attest that those who profess to be the most progressive, compassionate, tolerant, peaceful, and spiritual people are often the angriest, most narrow-minded, hateful, selfish, arrogant people I’ve ever met. And yes, they’re rednecks. As Walter Williams has written, it’s a state of mind crossing all cultural and geographic boundaries.

Another significant distortion comes from considering states as a whole. For example, in Pennsylvania, the crime profile in Philadelphia, where the elected officials do everything in their power to deny legal handgun ownership have the high crime statistics to prove it, and the rural counties where legal gun ownership, shooting ranges, and gun stores, are all unfettered within the law, have the low crime statistics that their law-abiding citizens expect. To lump all of Pa in one basket for one concusion is wrong and misleading. In S.E. Pa, you can literally find the worst and the best within 40 miles of each other.

A fair and balanced look should also report rates of gun theft. One obvious reason to break into a house is to get the guns. If “the criminals will always have guns,” where do you suppose they get them? I am not saying this to justify gun-grabbing, just to make the point that like most issues, it’s more complicated that the simplifiers on either side want to admit.

Mr Nemerov, you have a tin ear, or else you do not read carefully, or most likely BOTH. Even if you did not know that our charming Robomaster would of course be a clinger, (I’m an owner of plenty of guns, but not a clinger), if you just read his “denier” examples and thought about the logical implication, rather than responding so reflexively (shooting first, asking questions later), you should be able to extrapolate his sarcasm, which is obviously actually supporting your position

Actually, I wear electronic ears to correct for a hearing loss. If you want your “fair and balanced” get a copy of Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime. Articles are not books, and must focus on one aspect at a time. Your complaint is with VPC, since they’re the ones who selected the dataset and criteria. I merely work with what they gave me.

As far as Robo, had YOU read carefully, you would see that nearly all comments agree with my take. Also, you seem to have passed right by comment #19, where I responded to the Robo issue.

You took two data points and chose to justify an attempt at insult. This all makes you look bad.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the very term the VPC uses – “gun deaths” – a hidden logical fallicy in itself?

It’s like telling someone to count the vehicles in a 100 vehicle parking lot and having them tell you there are only 5 motorcycles while completely ignoring the 65 cars in it.

Further, it seems to ignore what I call the “different tool” effect. If someone is going to rob or kill someone and they have a gun, they’ll use it. If not, they’ll use something else – like Britain. How many “gun deaths” were there in the Rwanda machette massacres? Very few? Gee, sounds like we would be a lot safer there!

welfare and murder: when we had no welfare no gun laws and no forced busing we had very few murders.i wonder why?then we had kennedy,a crappy ass president,who was shot by a defector traitor let back into america by liberals.from that we got the 1968 gun control act which did zero to stop crime however had they banned traitors from returning to america with out hanging them.that would have stopped one murder.after that we got 20,00 gun laws only to see a huge increase in crime by designated victim groups.we need to repeal all anti-second amendment laws and begin treating violent criminals more harshly and put them in separate prisons where we can keep them until they are to old to commit crimes.

The VPC has a history of flawed “studies” that it has used to promote their worldview. All of them have been worthless so far, and I see that this one is just as compromised as all their prior ones.
Par for the course for the VPC. Nobody lies with statistics like they do.

The “findings” of the “study” can immediately be dismissed as bunk simply because they are blatant, radical anomolies that contradict countless other studies that have spanned decades which have concluded that the exact opposite is true; for decades, the raw statistics have proven that cities with the most stringent gun control laws have the highest gun crime rates(and highest general crime rates), while cities with lax gun laws have the lowest gun crimes. Furthermore, there is no statistical corroboration between rising gun crime with rising gun ownership as predicted by anti-gun leftists. Leftists use slippery slope, hypothetical arguments even when simple, objective statistical data proves otherwise

The 20,000 + pieces of legislation regarding the ‘right to bear arms’ do not mean one thing to me when it comes to protecting my family, myself and my posessions. My right to be armed comes from deep inside, it is my birthright.

Recently at an interstate rest stop at 2 am where I had stopped to use the facilities, I exited the facility to see 2 men, both larger than I and quite a bit younger, standing between me and my truck. They had “that look” on their faces that they knew there were only three people at this rural rest stop and they had the majority vote. I stopped just outside the doorway, looked directly at them for 5 or 10 seconds and pulled my jacket back to expose a stainless Python on my right side. Their demeanor changed almost immediately as they quickly moved to their car and drove off rather hurriedly. This will never be a stat anywhere. God bless Samuel Colt.

This is a lengthy read, but is probably the single strongest report on gun rights I have ever read.
(Note: A Pro-Gun study from Harvard Law of all places is a strong enough argument in itself without having to read it.)